In the Matter of J.D. Fairchild

Summary

Therese Fairchild lived in a relationship with her partner, Denise Fairchild, for many years before the two women decided to have a child. They jointly planned their child’s conception, and in 1996 Denise gave birth to their son. To ensure that Therese had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women entered into a court-approved joint custody agreement in 2001. Years after signing the agreement the couple’s relationship ended, and Denise has attempted to keep the boy from Therese by arguing, among other things, that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex couples invalidates the court’s shared custody order. In January 2007, a judge ruled that a custody agreement between two lesbian parents is valid and enforceable despite Ohio’s antigay amendment.

Context

Ohio voters passed an amendment to the state's constitution in 2004, prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples. But it said nothing about parent-child relationships. Additionally, more than one hundred years of case law in Ohio make clear that a shared custody agreement between a biological and nonbiological parent is valid and enforceable.

Lambda Legal's Impact

This case clarifies that parent-child relationships in Ohio are not affected by the state's antigay constitutional amendment that prohibits marriage between same-sex couples. On a more specific level, it means that a biological parent cannot use the antigay amendment to attack the relationship between a nonbiological parent and a child. Beyond solidifying the body of law binding gay and lesbian parents with their children, this case successfully highlights the importance of keeping antigay amendments in check.